Profile: fairness
This is fairness's Profile page. Use it to view fairness's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments fairness has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
July 13, 2010 4:44 pm
Thanks for your comment, Fairness. We will keep them in mind while creating our discussion summary. In the mean time, please share your thoughts on other portions of the rule.
July 26, 2010 9:25 am
Hi Fairness; thanks for your comment! Any suggestions on how a simplified refund system might work?
No comments
The discussion fails to take in to account the question, “does the airline industry deserve to be guaranteed profits?” What industry other then approved monopolies have this privilege. As consumers we are not given full information of costs, we can be bumped at the airlines discretion, and they can sell non-existent seats without fear of refund. The DOT is failing us by allowing airlines to over sell and issue non-refundable tickets. The DOT should require all tickets to be fully refundable (without hoops) and allow the airlines to oversell.
I believe that the airlines should be required to pay 5 times the full ticket price (incld. surcharges, and anything that was added by city, state or federal governments) This will act as a disincentive and return sanity and civility to the experience. Payment should be required to be released immediately at the gate in the form of “as good as cash” medium upon being advised of bumping. Additionally, passengers should be rebooked in the first available flight on the airline of the customer’s choosing.
The non-revenue tickets should be considered as those that are bought. It is already impossible to travel on earned “miles” . If the airlines would guarantee 30-35% of the aircraft seating as mile redeemable priority seating that would be another story. But… more »
Small aircraft should not be over-sold, period!
Finally, along with the ticket and in the same size font full disclosure of bumping regulation should be provided. That way the customer has the information in hand and is able to ensure that he/she is properly advised.
« less
You are either in business or guaranteed profit. You cannot have it both ways. Every business has its risks and good management deals with it accordingly. Passing those risks on to your customers in inappropriate. Once a purchase is completed a contract is in effect.
On the other hand, if customers are provided the right to cancel according to their self-determined “drastic” circumstances with a full and immediate refund I might think differently.
There has also been many reported incidences of credits taking months if not years to be provided by airlines. The DOT should require INSTANTANEOUS credits. Our debit/credit cards should be credited within the same time frame as they were debited for the original purchase. Any delay should warrant a substantial fine.
Well stated and I am in full agreement.
1) Unless you can purchase the one way fare and ultimately find seating, I think any offer requiring round trip should be disclosed as such. This goes for hotel and/or air and packages.
2) No increase of prices after the purchase unless the customer agrees prior to the transaction without any additional inducement.
3) These changes would benefit the customers and place no additional burden on the sellers. All the gotchas in small print in the advertising costs more then the changes needed to make the site cleaner, leaner and fairer.
I believe that optional fees, non-optional fees and any and all fees period should be prominently accessible on the page that travelers are completing to purchase their tickets.
Differences in code-share fees should not be allowed. If they can share codes they can bloody well share the same fees.
The DOT should require a second full fare price to include ALL traditionally provided services and baggage fees.
DOT should put a six (6) month rule for displaying changes on baggage fees.
All carriers regardless of size of aircraft should be impacted.
DOT should set the fees based on the ticketing airline and require the code-share to charge the same unless their charge benefits the traveler.
The terms should be part of the contract of carriage.
Interpretations should never be left to the side that is contracted and paid to provide the service. We have seen that behavior with the cable companies
The DOT should require compensation for both fees and lost bags. If the bag shows up later and is sent to the traveler at his/her convenience the traveler may opt in to reverse that lost bag charge.
If the bag is not there when you get off the plane it is lost period. We have enough modern technology to insure that lost bags are a rare exception.
If the passenger cannot get to his/her destination within 2 hours of the scheduled arrival the traveler should have the right to have a refund for any ticket immediately and on the spot and for the amount paid inclusive of all fees.
If… more »
There is absolutely no reason to prevent a traveler from suing.
Whichever regulation that governs foreign carriers that is more favorable to the traveler should be the effective one.
« less
Although I understand the seriousness of the issue for those with severe reactions I think an outright ban would be the only effective way to reduce the danger. However, you will not be able to prevent individual travelers from purchasing and transporting their own stash.
I have been flying internationally and domestically for 59 years and never encountered an incidence of an allergic reaction on any flight.
I feel that any individual with such a severe reaction needs to take the necessary precautions personally and not ask the airline to provide them.
Size has no relevancy as far as I am concerned. All foreign airlines flying into or out of the US airspace should be bound by the same rules.
The information and technology is available so I don’t find it burdensome for an airline , or for the DOT themselves to accumulate and present the info in a useable fashion for interested travelers.
It is but a fraction of what the airlines spend to misrepresent their service to the gullible flying public. Add that to the amount of legal gymnastics the public is put through to seek recovery of costs due to non delivery of service. And while there the tortoise-like speed of having a credit card debit reversed. I have no problem with near regulation of the industry again.